zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Template talk:Stub
Standards for Stub Status Do we have any specific standards as to what, exactly, qualifies as a stub? Is there some universal number of lines past which an article is no longer a stub, or do we take it on an article-by-article basis based on the amount of content available? I'm noticing some things that to me seem inconsistent, but I don't want to start changing stuff until I know what standards we're using. Thanks! Knives182 (talk) 06:06, May 12, 2011 (UTC) :Articles that are both short and in need of more information on the subject. Longer articles, though still in need of more information, become subject to expansion instead. --AuronKaizer ''' 06:58, May 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, basically what AK said. It's sort of subjective based off the article. For example, an item from a trading sequence in one of the Oracle games may only have a minute amount of information available, so although the article is short, it could be complete and, therefore, not a stub. Other pages-say, the Hookshot-could be moderately sized but still missing significant information and would be a stub. In short, if a page still has available information missing, it is a stub.—Triforce' ' 14' 22:33, May 12, 2011 (UTC) Placement of the Stub Template I was under the impression that Stub templates went at the bottom of the page, with the Nav templates directly above. A recent mass edit was recently performed to put Stub templates ''above the Nav templates, so now I'm confused. Which of these is the standard procedure? Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:09, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :From what I've seen before Skyward Sword came out, it was navboxes then stub. – Jäzz '' 01:11, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::I was under the impression stub tags go at the end of the article text, above the nav boxes (my doing that on one page is what sparked the rush of other edits). At this point though I think we should decide standard procedure ourselves rather than trying to grasp at what it used to be. My logic is that a stub tag is there to be noticed, so people who would want to add stuff would see that the page needs help, and laymen get the heads up that some info is left out. If the stub tag is bellow the navbox, or especially if there are a lot of navboxes, it is a lot less likely to be noticed. On some wikis they do the stub tag on top like we do with cleanup notices. I'd recommend putting stub tags directly after the end of the article text, if not on the top of the page/section.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 01:17, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::I think the idea is that the navboxes are still technically part of the article, so it makes more logistical sense to put the stub template underneath them. I see your point, though, and I don't especially care, but it should have been discussed before any changes were made. Either way, we should make a decision pretty fast so we can standardize. 'Xykeb' 'Yvolix' ''' '' 03:17, January 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::Everyone who moved a stub tag thought they were doing it according to an existing standard, so no one realized they could have been making any undiscussed changes. Maybe all this started because I just screwed up in my understanding of stub tags, but if so it's probably because I'd be very unlikely to notice one that was bellow the navboxes, hence my argument for putting them somewhere more obvious.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'''Fierce]][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 04:59, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::I realize that and wasn't trying to accuse your or CM of doing that. I was more pointing out that it was a bit careless to not realize a discussion was warranted, i.e. not checking other articles to make sure these changes were actually the standard. That's not really the point, though, and I'm not trying to lecture you or anything. In any case, I, as I said, don't have a preference, although I do feel I should point out that very few stubs actually contain more than one or two navboxes. I personally have never had trouble noticing them, although that may just be because I'm used to stub template coming after navboxes. Edit: That all being said, I'm going to be fair here and also point out that Tunic is a notable exception and a particularly awful example of what FD is talking about. So that's something to think about, I guess. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 06:15, January 22, 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I know you weren't trying to lecture anyone, I'm just saying, um, well it's a moot point anyway. But yeah, whether it's an experienced user or a new editor or a reader, stub tags are made to be noticed, so I would recommend putting them at the very top of the article/section. Much like an article which requires cleanup, being a stub is information we want to advertise, as opposed to something where all people need is a way to look it up when they're already thinking about it.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 08:53, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :As I said on my talkpage, I'm really sorry for all the trouble. However, I think it makes more sense for the stubs to be noticeable; isn't that the point of them saying "You can help Zeldapedia by expanding it"? —[[User:Ceiling Master|'Ceiling']] [[User talk:Ceiling Master|'Master']] 00:38, January 23, 2012 (UTC) I was aware that the standard was to have it below the NAVs and to be honest I always found it kind of strange. It is easier to see when it's above the NAVs. I did consider bringing it up but never got round to it. I'd cast a vote for above the NAVs anyway the template is there to be noticed after all Oni Link 10:24, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :FD's points are valid. It doesn't make much difference to me where the stub templates go, but I think putting them above the Nav templates makes more sense. Jedimasterlink (talk) 19:34, February 4, 2012 (UTC) Everyone who has weighed in on how we should place the stub templates (rather than just pointing out what they thought the standard was) either supports moving the stub templates above the nav templates or is neutral. If nobody provides any further points for discussion in the next day, we might as well go ahead and move them. Even though I myself am neutral, I don't like seeing topics just waiting around for so long like this. Jedimasterlink (talk) 08:11, February 24, 2012 (UTC)